jump to last post 1-21 of 21 discussions (190 posts)

Traits of religious fanatics

  1. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 5 years ago

    I've come to notice that there are certain traits that religious fanatic share, especially Christians.

    Irrationallity

    Stubbornness

    Not being able to answer a question directly

    Obnoxious quoting and misquoting the Bible instead of actually answering a question

    Regression into namecalling when backed into a corner with logic

    1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
      AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree. However, I think this can apply to anyone with any religion, or lack of it, to be honest. Yes, it applies alot to Christians, I agree.  I've written a lot of articles concerning this topic because I claim to be a believer and yet I find so many who claim to be so, exhibiting these traits. I think many who are non-religious don't recognize it in themselves becuase they are so busy pointing it out in the religious. We're all human and get angry with each other
      And I mean no disrespect to say this, but why begin a post to point out these things when it will only stir up anger and get everyone freshly riled up against these traits?  If people have encountered these attitudes, they're already angry. Why begin something that will only stir up negative emotion towards each other when it probably won't change the fact anyway? I'm not trying to be a pain; I just think it would benefit us all to be more positive; not to ignore the problem, but to address it in a manner which will not cause more strife...

      1. brittanytodd profile image93
        brittanytoddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with you, Ashton.  I learned to stay away from those negative debates when someone wrote on one of my hubs claiming to "shoot everything I said down".  After he posted a strange, rude, and irrelevant comment to my hub, I explained to him what I was saying and it was obvious that he didn't read it in the first place.

        I think a lot of people get out of hand--religious or not--and tend to participate in nonsense arguments that are never resolved.  We all need some positivity and acceptance otherwise we will spend all of our time arguing and no time learning.  You made some great points, Ashton.  Thanks for posting.

    2. 0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Believe it, or not; that pretty much sums up the behavior of the fanatics on both far ends of the religious spectrum.

      1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
        Mikel G Robertsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed.

      2. lone77star profile image91
        lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed x2. wink

    3. pennyofheaven profile image81
      pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The whole of humankind seem to possess those traits.

      1. LookingForWalden profile image59
        LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It definitely feels that way from time to time.

      2. lone77star profile image91
        lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It's called "ego."

    4. Alien invasion profile image60
      Alien invasionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm having a hard time myself understanding why irreligious people always criticize religious people for their attempts to attain a basic moral standard. Is it so hard for you to understand the premise that people are fallible? I rather think that you enjoy seeing religious people who are unable to live up to the set of standards prescribed in their religious books (especially Christians).

      "The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength." Saul Alinsky

    5. Jason Marovich profile image86
      Jason Marovichposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      For my fellow Christian 'fanatics'.  (That term makes me feel like a Philadelphia Phillies fan instead of a Christian, but it's cool)

      Matthew 10:22 (NIV) - "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm in the end will be saved."

      It's nice to be liked and loved, but there is a price for proclaiming your belief in the Savior.  Jesus already knew this would happen.  I certainly don't believe all atheists hate Christians, but I do believe that it wasn't meant to be easy to have faith.  Each of our faiths is a target for many who wish to bring it down.

      1. Disappearinghead profile image90
        Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Unfortunately use of that verse does lead many to believe that if they are being 'persecuted' they are 'on the correct side of the truth', whereas this 'persecution' may be nothing more than someone not agreeing with what is being stated.

        1. Jason Marovich profile image86
          Jason Marovichposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sometimes, yes.  Other times, no.  There is blatant persecution of Christians here and everywhere in the world.  There are people seeking truth and debate, but there are many, many others that simply despise Christ and everything He stands for.  This is no surprise to anyone that has read the Bible.

          1. Disappearinghead profile image90
            Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not sure that I've heard of Christians being executed or imprisoned in the West. Do people where you live really hate Christ and what He stands for? Many will not believe, or even antagonise those that do believe, but that isn't hate.

    6. mischeviousme profile image60
      mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I must admit that I have been fanatical in my beliefs from time to time. But aren't all relligious sects not prone to persecution from time to time? My problem is that I react instead of acting and I tend to say what I think, rather than what I feel.
         Are we all not the same in this sense?

    7. 60
      tlmntim9posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What A punk!  glad you know everthing! God knows I don't. I'm simply a human who possesses the capacity for good as well as for evil. What are you Mr. perfect?

  2. getitrite profile image80
    getitriteposted 5 years ago

    I think the most common traits I have seen are willful ignorance, and an inability to stop fearing this nonsensical, imaginary God.

  3. Pcunix profile image90
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    OK.  I dislike religion as much or more than anyone.  I can also be really nasty when one of the godsoaked starts babbling.

    BUT:

    Some of the really nicest and most wonderful people I have known have been deeply religious..  yes, I think they are foolish, irrational and worse, but dammit they are wonderful people and I am glad to have known them.

    Religion can do horrible evil.  I don't for a minute buy that it is NECESSARY in any way - I think those folks would have been ultra nice even if they had not a religious thought in their head.  But I'm not going to broadly tar all religious people as unworthy just because they have some silly ideas in their head.

    As Ashton said, willful ignorance can exist without religion - and it does.  If being religious always meant a person would become as warm and kind as the people I'm thinking of, I'd heartily recommend that everybody "get religion".  It doesn't, sadly.  It talks the talk, but rarely walks the walk.

    So, yeah: I'm a militant atheist.  There's a lot I don't like about religion.  But I like some religious people just fine, thank you.

    1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
      AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "It talks the talk, but rarely walks the walk..." I agree.
      lol "godsoaked"?? smile that made me smile...

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Godsoaked is mine:  http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p … id=2579648

        It goes way back to alt.atheism long before Microsoft ruined email and Google ruined Usenet..

    2. paradigmsearch profile image90
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I like this statement.

  4. olodarkwriter profile image58
    olodarkwriterposted 5 years ago

    OK you can give it out, but can you take it?

    Traits of anti-religious fanatics

    * Obsessed with religion - babble on endlessly about it on internet
    * self-righteous - convinced of own rightness
    * amazingly insightful and intelligent - arrive at answers to cosmic questions all on their own, in opposition to billions of stupid religious fools
    * stubborn, intractable
    * have no faith in religion, yet often believe whole-heartedly in ideas that take overwhelming amount of faith, such as big bang, evolution, the-universe-could-have-created-itself-out-of-nothing (Steven Hawking)
    * hypocrites - accuse religion of being totally horrible, but when have you seen an atheist hospital?
    * hypocrites II - demand others be open minded but are most closed minded people on earth
    * incurable pessimists and negative thinkers. There only answer is "No there isn't."
    * ungrateful - happily consume God's air, water, tuna sandwiches etc. Then not only don't say thanks but deny his existence
    * did I say intelligent? You know that was sarcastic. Must be mentally challenged, as able to look at complex structures  like cells, ecosystems, galaxies and conclude these are the result of time and chance (sort of like all the merchandise in Wal-mart is the result of time and chance)
    * "Thinking themselves wise, they became fools."

    1. 0
      Cranfordjsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think obsessed with humankind's discourse would be better. Thinking that one is as special as to be born into the right religion is "self-righteous. Anti- religious "fanatics" search for answers of the cosmos, instead of chalking it up to god. Anti-religious "fanatics" have faith, faith in that science can explain the unknowns of the universe.  “Atheist hospitals”, no but we don't see Atheist pedophiles on the news every other day. How can an atheist be closed minded? They usually know more about religion than religious people, "Obsessed with religion" right?  God's air? You are contradicting yourself since you can't possible know that god exist, making it his air. This would be "closed minded". Did you say "intelligent". The smartest countries in the world are Secular. I’m also a science major .

      "Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and
      scriptural ignorance—The texts themselves are
      unequivocal: they are perfect in all their parts. By their light, religious
      moderation appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness
      to fully submit to God's law. By failing to live by the letter of the
      texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious
      moderates betray faith and reason equally. Unless the core dogmas
      of faith are called into question—i.e., that we know there is a God,
      and that we know what he wants from us—religious moderation
      will do nothing to lead us out of the wilderness." -Sam Harris

      1. Pcunix profile image90
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        We have the biggest and bestest Kiva lending team..  http://www.kiva.org/team/atheists

    2. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      One of the saddest posts I've seen in 2 years here. lol lol

      But, as you can see, it's also very funny. lol lol

    3. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If believers did not force their beliefs on everyone, there would be no need to "babble" about it. Keep your beliefs behind closed doors where they belong and out of the public. No problem, then.

      Of course, you're commanded to evangelize your religion, so how is it possible for anyone not to "babble"?



      You mean, we know reality is right and your beliefs have nothing to do with reality.



      Science arrives at answers that show the opposition, we don't.



      Entirely false, science has nothing to do with faith, it deals strictly with the evidence of the physical world.



      That is actually way too funny to be taken seriously and is evidence for hypocrisy. lol



      In other words, we don't share your irrational fantasies so we are closed minded. Yeah, that makes sense.



      Entirely false, and you know it.



      A complete denial of reality and an insult to the starving who die every day.



      That would show a complete lack of intelligence and understanding of the world around you.



      And, as usual, an insult to top it all off. lol

  5. olodarkwriter profile image58
    olodarkwriterposted 5 years ago

    Oh sorry, I left off

    * overwhelmed with hubris - see asterisk #3 in previous post

  6. LookingForWalden profile image59
    LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago

    There's quite a few hospitals in Connecticut that are atheist, including Yale.

      
    “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it” Adams.

  7. AshtonFirefly profile image82
    AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago

    People please, quit bashing each other. None of all of these traits listed apply to all religious people; just as not all traits listed about non-religious people apply to all non-religious people. We're all perfectly aware of the faults of each other. Let's see each other as individuals and stop generalizing sad What good is this discussion doing anyone except to cause strife?

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Indeed.

      And I am NOT a nice person at all. I really have no respect for religion, but broad generalizations just don't fly.   Religious people can be very nice,can mind their own business and can be fun, smart, whatever.

      In other words, they can be just like atheists :-)

    2. brittanytodd profile image93
      brittanytoddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      +1

    3. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I never said all religious people. I said FANATICS.

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
        AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I know. Either way, it's not going to do any good to bash each other sad, fanatic or not

    4. Valerie F profile image60
      Valerie Fposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Precisely. The important thing is to know where our own faults, not how good we think we are at pointing them out in others.

    5. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Without the generalizations, then everything boils down to individuals and if you personally attack people in the forums, which is on an individual level, then you or the person will be banned.

      Therefore, words must be used, like almost all or most or things like that, so as to not attack any particular individual and then get banned.

      1. donotfear profile image89
        donotfearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/thumbsup.png

      2. AshtonFirefly profile image82
        AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don’t disagree with debating. I just disagree with the sentiment of bashing and attacking, altogether, individually or generally. why not just stop attacking?It’s impossible to deal with people on an individual basis here…so in that situation—isn't it better to just refrain?.  sad A public forum with random people who we [probably] don’t know, typing out words without the help of either facial expression or verbal expression to make ourselves clear just seems like a lousy place to try to prove or attack anything or any My whole point is: nothing good is coming out of any of this, as far as I can tell. I just hate seeing people doing this to each other.

        1. Cagsil profile image82
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Debating religion is like talking to someone who has their head buried in sand. They cannot hear you.
          It's all subjective.
          It's subjective. Example: I could call someone ignorant, but it's not an attack for the pure and simple fact that ALL humans are ignorant in some capacity or another. However, it's deemed as an attack on HP forums and many individuals feel threatened or demean when told they are ignorant. But, it's truth whether or not, they agree or disagree. Everyone is ignorant.
          If you refrain from speaking in the forums and everyone else followed suit, then what good would the forums be in the first place?
          Untrue, on level sub-conscious level an impact is made regardless of whether or not, they recognize it.
          I'm sure you do, but it's the nature of the topic.

          1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
            AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            As far as it being subjective, I get your point. I guess I was referring mostly to blatant “you’re a stupid brainwashed idiot” type offenses;  where people aren’t debating; they’re just telling each other how stupid they are. This, to me, is the type of debate I was talking about which isn’t doing any good. That’s why I said, I like debate. Debate is good. But not when it all eventually boils down to people criticizing and hating back and forth. My encouragement was not necessarily to refrain from debate in the forums, but to stop attacking and berating everyone individually. But, as you mentioned in your post, it’s impossible to treat each other as individuals here…so that led to my conclusions that it might be best to avoid this topic in the medium of a forum…just an opinion. I could be wrong.
              I enjoy a good debate with anyone, as long as it is done respectfully. I have no doubt that an impact is made, in a sub-conscious level. But I’m not sure it’s always a positive impact when the majority of debate ends up being bashing. The nature of the topic IS going to get people in heated discussion; I’m fine with that. I’m just saying the forums are a lousy place to do it and if we do it, it should be with more respect….I understand where you’re coming from, though.

            1. Cagsil profile image82
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Good to know I don't need to do any further explanation. lol lol

              1. AshtonFirefly profile image82
                AshtonFireflyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                smile

  8. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    What an I doing awake? at 2:30 AM! 

       The biggest thing wrong with with religion is that ;  by definition, anyone that states that "I believe in GOD" can build a church regardless of their message.
        And anyone that goes to that church can say that they are servants of God.

        Just because it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, doesn't mean that it is a duck.

    1. pennyofheaven profile image81
      pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What is it then if its not a duck?

      1. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Motorized decoy ????

        1. pennyofheaven profile image81
          pennyofheavenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Haha you made me laugh!!!

  9. lone77star profile image91
    lone77starposted 5 years ago

    @janesix, beautiful point. I think you're talking about "ego."

    As a Christian attempting to reason with another Christian, I found exegetical proof being called "blaspheming." Oh, well!

    But except for the Bible quoting, you could apply the same to many secularists who are also "reasonable-soaked" egotists.

    I love it when I have an intelligent discussion with some who isn't closed to a broad analytical look at things.

    I have found few Christians or secularists who can do this on the things I've discovered. To them I'm just a strange malcontent. So be it!

    I'm having too much fun with it to care about their egos. But I really do care about them.

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Here's a problem, though.

      Two Christians can disagree and still feel they are having an intelligent conversation.

      You cannot have an "intelligent" conversation with me about religion, because I can't accept that any rational thought process could ever end up with any religious conclusion.

      You might be a very nice person.  i might admire you for your deeds, I might enjoy your company, but I will never see you as rational.   If we discuss your beliefs, your inability to follow a rational train of thought will always be a part of our discussion.  That's unavoidable, and most of the time it is going to cause anger in both of us.

      Though I will say this:  it's agnostics who REALLY tick me off.  I can excuse you on grounds that your emotions overwhelm your common sense.  Agnostics have no such excuse.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Funny. Some of us agnostics say the same about the devoutly religious and the atheists.

  10. Jason Marovich profile image86
    Jason Marovichposted 5 years ago

    Execution and imprisonment aren't the only way to 'cause one to suffer because of their beliefs'.

    1. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, but here in the West, atheists have to put up with much more than Christians do.

      I'm not looking for trouble.  As I have said many times, I will stand and defend the right to believe any fool thing you want.

      But atheists have to suffer far more than any Christian ever does - in THIS country.  Other places, who knows - both may suffer equally.


      One quick example:  Every single Presidential candidate is a deeply religious person.  They all constantly talk about turning to prayer in times of trouble.

      Do you have any idea how frightening that is?  In times of serious danger, I don't want some fool rushing off to get down on his knees!  I want intelligent, decisive action.  But I have to instead hope that they won't waste too much precious time praying before they start doing!

      1. Disappearinghead profile image90
        Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How do atheists suffer in (assumption here) America?

        In the UK nobody suffers persecution, no matter what faith or no faith. Except perhaps some Islamic communities who have suffered abuse since 9/11

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You don't have to be persecuted to suffer. 

          Our ridiculous motto "In God We Trust" is exclusionary.  It is almost impossible to be elected to any important political office as an atheist.   Small things, perhaps, but they are real.

          1. Disappearinghead profile image90
            Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Having read your earlier post, it's not the idea that a leader goes to pray that would unerve me (that's his freedom to practice religion) it's when he comes back to decide policy based on what he thought God was telling him that's the worry.

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You don't think that the time he spends on that could be spent better seeking advice from people who actually could have something useful to say?

          2. LookingForWalden profile image59
            LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What's really messed up is that people think "in god we trust" and "one nation under god"  were like that since 1776 and not from the 1950's.

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, the motto was first added to our coinage in 1864 on the newly designed Two Cent coin (I have a hub about that coin if you would like to know more about it).

              Our founders cared about "Liberty" and "E Pluribus Unum" - that's what THEY put on our money.

              But they had intelligence..

              1. LookingForWalden profile image59
                LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I'm sorry the term under god was from the fifties. I meant to put two times on there.

                1. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, "Under God" was added in the Fifties.  I was in elementary school and refused to say it.

                  1. Disappearinghead profile image90
                    Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I think it rather quaint that your school children have to stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag and nation at all. Where does all this patriotic sentimental emotionalism come from anyway?

  11. Jason Marovich profile image86
    Jason Marovichposted 5 years ago

    It comes from living in a place that stands as an example of diversity and renewal to the rest of the 'older' world.  It comes from living in a country that has flung wide its doors and coffers to give formerly restricted people a place where they can worship freely and live in peace.  And it comes from living in a country that has proven time and time again its willingness to defeat tyranny, wherever it rears its ugly head.

  12. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago

    I wouldn't say that all religion is irrational (of course, if you are irrational, are you likely to be aware of it).  I would say that anyone who gets all their answers to all life's question from the same source (read bible) is likely to be slightly skewed and one dimensional.

    The fact is that no one religious text answers all questions and if it does, then the reader is doing some pretty serious twisting of verses to get those answers.  (Take my recent video game thread... Seriously?  Jesus never said a damn thing about Skyrim)

    On the other hand, saying that there is nothing of value in the Bible (or any other religious text) is equally skewed.  The fact is, any given religion's value system is likely not so terribly different than those of another religion (atheists for that matter.  It's the small percentage of differences that are fought about and overblown.  In short, by virtue of being human we have more similarities in morality than differences, regardless of religion.

    As far as the rational/irrational thing.  I don't happen to believe that my belief system is all that irrational.  However, even if it was... So what?  Human beings are not supposed to be 100 percent rational.  That's a whole different kind of psychological disorder.  We have all kinds of completely irrational emotions, instincts and urges that make us people instead of automatons. 

    Some of the most irrational decisions in my life have made me the happiest smile

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Being 100 percent rational does not make one an automaton nor is it some kind of psychological disorder, it just makes us rational people who don't accept nonsense and fairy tales as reality.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's patently ridiculous.  Deficit in emotion is a symptom in at least 10 psychological disorders that I can think of right from the top of my head.  Including anti-social personality disorder, sociopaths, and psychopaths. 

        There is no psychological disorder known that addresses 100 percent rationality, because the condition is impossible in human beings.

        As I assume that you are a human being, you aren't 100 percent rational... as much as you would like to think you are.

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I have to agree there also.  I am too rational to accept religion - it honestly seems very foolish to me - but I am not completely rational myself.

          Irrational doesn't mean useless.  Religion is harmless to many, comforting to some, and dangerous in the hands of a very few.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Who said anything about deficit in emotion? Where does that come from?



          Impossible? And, what kind of non-physical supernatural things do I believe exist?

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            TM, I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

            I really don't want to get into the Spock Straw man argument here, but emotional thinking when taken by itself is completely and utterly devoid of rationality. In many cases it is the diametric opposite of rational thinking.  To claim that you are 100 percent rational is essentially claiming that you have no emotional thinking whatsoever.  The worst psychopaths in the world still have some degree.  Without it you would be a monster.

            Now, with that in mind I think it's kinda silly to single out a belief system that is based on emotional (irrational) thinking.  In short, everyone is going to be irrational about something... laying a value system on what areas of the life that is seems a bit... self-righteous.

            You may not believe in sky fairies... So what?  That just means your irrationality lies elsewhere.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Come now, Melissa, I'm just not agreeing with you on this.



              Now, I'm really intrigued. We can't be 100 percent rational because our emotions are 100 percent irrational? Our emotions cannot be rational?



              I really find that very hard to believe.  In fact, according to neurological studies, the opposite may be true. Check this out...

              "In a more pervasive and less easily definable way, the capacity to experience emotion seems to be indispensable to the conduct of a rational life over time. Antonio Damasio (1994) has amassed an impressive body of neurological evidence suggesting that emotions do, indeed, have this sort of function in everyday reasoning. Subjects in his studies who, because of injuries sustained to the prefrontal and somatosensory cortices of the brain, had a diminished capacity to experience emotion, were severely hindered in their ability to make intelligent practical decisions. In these ways, then, emotions would be all important to rationality even if they could not themselves be deemed rational or irrational."

              http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotion/#8



              I've tried to think of some other areas, but I can't come up with anything.

    2. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I would not disagree, and especially the last sentence.

      But my statement still stands.  Religious belief is emotional, not rational.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, I absolutely agree that religion is emotional. smile

        I could go in on a long list of very rational uses of religion and the pros and cons of organized religion... (in another thread). But personal religious beliefs are indeed mostly emotional. 

        Another off topic debate would be the definition of rational vs. irrational as objective or subjective... and the difference between rational decisions and decisions based on empirical evidence.

        I love those kind of debates so much, though, that I would likely need a smoke afterwards and would certainly feel guilty about not sending you flowers the next day.

        1. livelonger profile image90
          livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I agree.

          Rationalist arguments don't hold sway in either supporting or dispelling undisprovable belief. The only times I've seen it used by religious people are when they want to try to convert nonbelievers and think it would be an angle that works with them (it never does).

          The older I get, though, the more trustworthy my "gut" feel becomes. But my personal feelings can't be used to effectively persuade someone else, and they shouldn't be; they just guide my own behavior.

          Good point on rational vs empirical arguments, too.

          1. Pcunix profile image90
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The funny thing about gut feelings is that very often they are exactly the right reaction.  That's especially true when you think someone is lying to you.  If your gut says they are, they usually are.  Not always, but I'd bet it beats lie detectors :-)

            1. livelonger profile image90
              livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Agreed. I wish my gut feelings were more reliable when I was younger; would've wasted much less time dating. (Or maybe all those bad dates are what honed my gut???)

          2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, what HE said.

        2. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Umm. am not I the one supposed to send flowers?

          It's been a long time, so maybe I'm remembering it badly.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It depends on which one of us wins smile

            (That was the only PG-13 answer I could give)

            1. Pcunix profile image90
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hmm.  It HAS been a while.  I didn't know that it was a competition, either..

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Not so much of a competition as a challenge...

                And the winner is obviously the one who comes out on top.

                1. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Now I am sure that my memory must be gone.  My recollection says that top and bottom were both fun..  well, I *think* it was fun.. maybe I'm wrong about that too.

  13. Smokes Angel profile image74
    Smokes Angelposted 5 years ago

    Actually not all of us are like that, you obviously have a deep bitterness towards someone who you have questioned.  True Christianity is about loving others regardless.  Instead of hatefully making statements maybe you should look into it more deeply.  You cannot base your opinion of all Christians on your experience with a few.  Just like we cannot say that all men are jerks or all priests are pedophiles.

    1. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Again, I only mentioned fanatics. What part of that don't you get?

      1. Don Crowson profile image78
        Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        IIt should tell you something when the term "fanatics" is interpreted as "all Christians."

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not our fault... the fanatics exclude us non-fanatical Christians by their choice.  I, for example, am not a Christian to 50 percent of other Christians.  Fundies choose to define Christianity by using themselves as the ruler.  That ruler too often measures zealousness.

          The fundies made their padded room, they can bounce off the walls of it.

          In short, God may have made man in his own image, but Fundies have made Christianity in their image.  I'm kinda upset about it myself, but I haven't found a fundie funeral to picket yet.

          1. 0
            Cranfordjsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "Religious moderates are, in large part, responsible
            for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide
            the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence
            can never be adequately opposed." -Sam Harris

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I'll apologize to Mr. Harris if I ever meet him.  It must be horribly frustrating to not be able to use all his preconceived notions against someone who doesn't actually fit them.

              I shall try to be more fanatical to make it easier for someone to tell me I'm wrong. "Disagree with me so I can argue with you" is such a great debate strategy.

              Edit:  BTW, I'm not a religious moderate, I am a religious liberal.  I'll give you time to wrap your mind around that.

              1. 0
                Cranfordjsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "not our fault"..... What is the difference between moderate and liberal? Are you liberal because you can't fully submit to god's law? If you believed in Christianity, why wouldn't you run with it all the way? Do you cherry pick it, so that it is compatible to you regardless of what the actual word of god says? "Mr. Harris" didn't send you the quote, why would you apologize to him?

                I can tell you that you're wrong regardless of your "fanatical" level. Anyone who goes beyond the idea of god, and says, he or she knows which god it is, in example, Jesus Christ, is a fanatic to me.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Aww!  You are so cute in YOUR fanaticism.  You must be new to the forums.  In answer to your questions... I cherry pick the HELL out of the bible.  I don't believe there is such a thing as "God's Law".  I believe in Christianity and I have run all the way with it... Maybe you need to work on your definitions of Christianity.  Quoting Sam Harris at me doesn't really upset me because I agree with a lot of his stuff... although he is a bit unimaginative and stereotyping in his views and is just a little bit arrogant.  I wouldn't, of course, apologize to him... although since he takes religion as a personal insult I'm sure mine would personally offend him.

                  You have no idea whether I'm wrong or not, because you have no idea what my beliefs are.  Maybe you could try asking me and I'll let you know.  THEN you can say I'm wrong.  I don't really go beyond the idea of God, because I am undecided on whether there is one or not.  I don't know which God(s)-if any-are the right ones because I've never met he/she/it/they/non-existant.  I don't believe Jesus was a God regardless...

                  Now... here is your turn to say "You aren't a Christian then" because, as we all know, that is for everyone else in the world to define.

                  1. 0
                    Cranfordjsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Your are a Christian, correct? So you are undecided about a Deity, but you claim the religion. That's like me claiming the CRIPS and not being sure if I agree with gang banging. Do you believe Jesus was the son of God?

                    I'm not going to tell you anything, but I will give you my opinion with the information that is allotted to me. I think you are a Christian. (if it says it's a duck, it's a duck.)  I mean they have a million different sects. I don't see one sect making up the entire religion, but I do believe every sect under the fundies do pave way for their ignorance.

              2. 0
                Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Religious liberal.....is that another way of saying heathen?

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Obviously. wink

              3. Pcunix profile image90
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I think what he means is that moderates cut slack for the extremists, effectiving validating their existence.

                It is hard for moderates to admit the insanity of the extremists because to admit that casts the same aspersions on their own beliefs.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay, I can see that.

                  The only point I'd make is that moderate means well moderate.  I am sure there are quite a few moderates that come down hard on fundies too.  I've noticed that the trend towards exclusion by the most fanatical extends outside these forums... and it tends to piss off most Christians to be told they aren't one.  (Doesn't really bother me all that much, but you know)

                  In addition, the acts and beliefs of the extremists are becoming so virulent that I think moderates are increasingly likely to come down harder on the group.  After all, it is becoming a choice between being associated with the loonies or giving up your religion.  I predict that within the next 20 or so years that there will more and more self-policing among the Christians. I see the group, as a whole, moving more towards center and fundamentalists being relegated to "cult" status.

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I'd love to see that happen. I think it is critical that it does happen.  There is too much looking the other way.

                2. livelonger profile image90
                  livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I disagree.

                  Extremists will never listen to people outside their belief system; your thoughts and rationales are absolutely meaningless to them.

                  Moderates can "speak the same language" and understand enough of our own religion to tell extremists they're corrupting the values of it. And since we're members of the religion, we can't be accused of trying to destroy the religion.

                  The fact that moderates speaking out against extremism is not nearly effective enough for nonbelievers' satisfaction does not mean it's not the most effective counter to extremism.

                  1. Pcunix profile image90
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh, I think it definitely IS the most effective.  I just don't see enough of it.

                    We have a religious nut as a neighbor.  Everybody ignores him, but only one neighbor will actually admit that this guy is crazy - maybe it's because he lives right next door, but I think it's more than that.  I think moderates are afraid of a "slippery slope" and I'm not sure I can blame them for that.

            2. lizzieBoo profile image78
              lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Brilliant.

  14. Don Crowson profile image78
    Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago

    Well, I think that's interesting; however, I would also class it as a personal opinion that is hard to document.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I class everything on this thread, including your own post, as personal opinion and hard to document.  I thought we all understood that.

  15. Don Crowson profile image78
    Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago

    I do understand that everything is personal opinion.  However, I refuse to use a broad brush in fanatics. Somewhere along the line, it appeared tp me that many were classing all Christians as fanatics.  Otherwise janesix would not need to remind people that the terms were limited.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      In response to that, I will say that a ridiculous amount of Christians on these forums have told me at one point or another that I was not a Christian.  Since they have, largely, defined themselves it is only fitting that they be held to their own definition.

      I, as a Christian, did not get offended by the title at all.  It may be worth examining why you did.

  16. Don Crowson profile image78
    Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago

    I am not offended by the title.  I am wondering why the term "fanatic" had to be used to clarify the topic.  Janesix has posted at least twice that the thread is limited to "fanatics."  Why did she need to do that?  Well someone misinterpreted her premise.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I assume that the OP wanted to differentiate between raving zealots and the functional Christians.  It's a complement really.  It means that she doesn't believe that all Christians are fanatical and is addressing only those who are.

      1. Don Crowson profile image78
        Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That assumes that she knows many of them.  Otherwise she would not judge the traits of one or two zealots for a discussion, would she?  Perhaps if she named those particular ones, we would have a better idea of her reasoning rather than the idea of her emotional disgust.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, actually it doesn't.

          Try it this way, what if someone posted a thread about wanting to talk about blond haired people.  Why on earth would a brunette be offended?

          The O.P. wanted to talk about religious fanatics in general... are you saying that religious fanatics don't exist?  Or are you offended because you consider yourself a religious fanatic?

          If you are trying to defend Christians in general, there is no need.  The OP doesn't seem to be attacking ALL Christians... Just the fanatics.  Now, if you consider yourself a fanatic, there is also no need to defend ALL Christians... just yourself.

          1. Don Crowson profile image78
            Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            As usual you have jumped to a couple of conclusions that are way off the logical spectrum. We are not tole what the O.P. intended.  We do not know how many she referenced.  Is it a majority of Christians?  Is it a large minority?

            But the point is clearly aimed at a religious segment.  Hey, it could be aimed at many other groups. But only religious fanatics are included.  I would like to know specifically which religious people she lanels as fanatics.  Is that asking too much?  Dont think so.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              *sighs*  It doesn't matter whether it's the majority or the minority... The OP is ONLY addressing the fanatics.  By saying religious FANATICS, he names the specific group, once again it does not matter what percentage of the people are such. It doesn't matter if its a large minority or not.  That is off topic.  The OP has not addressed it.  Geez, what are you not understanding? 

              I didn't jump to a conclusion, I actually read the post, and only the post, without reading anything else into it or taking it as a personal attack.  Try it sometimes.  It's great to not imagine arguments instead of actually debating the friggen subject.

              It CANNOT be aimed at any other other groups, as it specifically says FANATICS.  That is a limited statement.  Logical people assume that limiting statements... well limit. 

              Now your point about what exactly is labeled as a religious fanatic is the ONLY valid point you've made so far.  Why not ask THAT question before you go off on tangents?

              My classification of a religious fanatic would include becoming irrationally disgrutled by a realistic statement that fanatics exist within the religion and righteous indignation at the possibility that your religion is anything but perfect.

              1. Don Crowson profile image78
                Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                MB
                are you saying that religious fanatics don't exist? 
                DC
                Looks as though you are asking an absurd question. Ther4efore, you have jumped to a ridiculous conclusion if you are serious.

                MB
                Or are you offended because you consider yourself a religious fanatic?
                DC
                So how many fanatics do you know that are aware they are fanatics. How many would admit it? So once again you jump to a ridiculous conclusion.

                MB
                If you are trying to defend Christians in general, there is no need.  The OP doesn't seem to be attacking ALL Christians... Just the fanatics.  Now, if you consider yourself a fanatic, there is also no need to defend ALL Christians... just yourself.

                DC
                Time to read a few of the posts in this thread.  You might be inclined to change your mind.
                So

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  roll Okay, I'm going to go talk to my wall now.

                  1. LookingForWalden profile image59
                    LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You'd get more accomplished.

                    My favorite part is how he(and all fundi)  dismiss questions they don't like as nonsensical. This is the biggest trait of fanatics.
                    Closing dialogues they don't like or can't answer.

    2. LookingForWalden profile image59
      LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Nobody generalized all Christians if you reread who asked for clarification it was a Christian every time .

      1. Don Crowson profile image78
        Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        They didn't have to generalize all Christians.  I recall how saying "Merry Christmas" turned into an attack on Christians.  Free Speech and religious freedom are abridged by good manners.  ROTFLMAO

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Really?  I didn't feel at all attacked by that thread.  *Shrugs* Go figure.

          1. Don Crowson profile image78
            Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't feel attacked either, but I know people who were attacked. They are those who believe Christmas is a religious holiday that has been celebrated in this country for centuries(two makes a plural), and it is their right to say "Merry Christmas."  Hey, look at the stores who don't want to offend, so thay say "Merry Xmas" or "Happy Holidays."  So regardless how you fee, some are being attacked due to their wishing others "Merry Chriwstmas."

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              There are those who know Christmas is not a religious holiday, at least, not a religious holiday based on Christianity.

              Sure, it may be their right to say "Merry Christmas" but it is also peoples right to not wish to hear someone saying "Merry Christmas"

              That's how it works, Don.

              1. Don Crowson profile image78
                Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That's how it works in the mind of people who have not studied the history of Christmas.  And you are one who has neglected to do the research.

                1. LookingForWalden profile image59
                  LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Because Jesus was born on December 25 right?

                  Sarcasm.

                  Please don't tell me you really think this.

                  1. Don Crowson profile image78
                    Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    So where did you get the idea that I thought Jesus was born on December 25.  Do you really believe that just because we celenbrate his birth on 12/25 that we must also believe he was born on 12/25.  Have you studied the history of Christmas?  Obviously not.

                2. DoubleScorpion profile image84
                  DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  What is the History behind Christmas? What about the term Xmas? I am interested in what you have discovered. If you would please.

                  1. Don Crowson profile image78
                    Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I would tell you, but I am working on a hub toi address that very subject.

  17. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

    A little advice for those here who are soo offended by believers, get out! Get up and leave , walk away ,  but please stop justifying you hollowness by dumping on spirituality . In other words "grow up"!

    1. 0
      Cranfordjsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yea, you probably just opened a can of worms. smile

    2. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe you need a lesson in humility? Hmmm....

      The self-righteous telling other people to grow up when they themselves cannot see the error of their own ways? Ironic.

      1. Don Crowson profile image78
        Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So how do you determine that a person is self-righteous? Is that because you judge motives and know that his/her motives are selfish? So you presume to know the heart of other people?  Good for you, where did you get such power?

    3. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      LOL! How does an adult who talks to invisible friends honestly tell another adult who doesn't to "grow up"?

      It is primarily evangelizing that offends everyone, will Christians stop evangelizing, then?

      1. Don Crowson profile image78
        Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How interesting that you can speak for "everyone."  Where did you get that authority?  Or is it your arrogance that makes you assume that everyone believes as you do?

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Gee Don, you really got me on that one. I suppose I'll have to retract the word "everyone" in light of Don's critical thinking skills and excellent detective work.

          How about this?

          Many people are offended by Christian evangelizing, even some Christians themselves are offended.

          Better? smile

          1. Don Crowson profile image78
            Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Much better, thanks.

  18. 0
    Patricia-Voglposted 5 years ago

    I am wondering why we would categorize anyone with those certain "traits."  I think anyone could have those traits.  Religion or not...Personal Choice.

    1. Don Crowson profile image78
      Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Should be obvious why religion is attacked.  It is due to the desire of those who hate competition. The free exchange of ideas leaves them in a lurch.  that's why they attack rather than debate.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, centuries of wars, hatred, oppression, division, evangelizing and host of other atrocities might have something to do with it. lol

        1. Don Crowson profile image78
          Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ah, sounds like someone who is saying that if the Christians would go away, we would have world peace and prosperity.  Who was it that said we were limit this thread to religious fanatics.

          1. mischeviousme profile image60
            mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            All religions have a place, that in the form of guidance. Though I still think we should take those examples and stop worshiping the past.

          2. LookingForWalden profile image59
            LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I say all religous fanatics are ignorant because they ignore any and all proof to the contrary of what their scripture says.

            If you think the world is anything less then millions of years old because of a holy book than you ate probably a fanatic.

            I'll take my Newtons, Archimedes, Galileos, over

            Pat Robertson, billy graham or any other snake oil salesmen on tv in the morning.

            1. mischeviousme profile image60
              mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Very realistic way to look at things. Why not just follow the teachings and let the teacher rest?

            2. Don Crowson profile image78
              Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well, that's what you get for believing the snake oil salesmen and not reading the holy book.  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  did you notice the period?  So when was the beginning?  The holy book doesn't say.  But if you read some of the other scriptures, you would learn that the earth is millions of yr=ears old.

              So my question is, what can you teach anyone if you don't know what the holy book says?  Do your own research and quit badmouthing people people who know more than you do.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Six days, according to Genesis.



                Entirely false, Don. Scriptures says no such thing and the earth is actually billions of years old, so it would still be inaccurate.



                lol

          3. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Christians don't have to go anywhere, they just need a little education in their lives.

            The ideology is the problem, not the people who follow it.

            1. mischeviousme profile image60
              mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I never said they had to go anywhere. Time is in the present and time knows no place. The point of what I said is simple. Live now and let the teachings of the past guide us. To the same point. Why worry about an uncertain future? Why not feel the truth, instead of hearing it?

                  Here's an excocise: Try to feel your brain, or your mind. It's actually quite difficult. People are aroused by feeling, but they only feel with their ears, eyes and fingers. Try feeling it deeper and you'll find it's all an illusion.

                  This illusion I speak of, is the dellusion that we were ever in control to begin with.

              1. LookingForWalden profile image59
                LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                He was responding to Don Crowson.

                1. mischeviousme profile image60
                  mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Good. Maybe I was misguided, but then again, I wasn't attacking. I was merely enlightening myself through words while reading a question. Maybe I wanted to answer the question for myself.

                2. Don Crowson profile image78
                  Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You might help that troubled man. he has been asked a question.  He will answer it because he is not a religious fanatic.  He =will answer with documentation and not call it nonsense.  So help that troubled man with answering hard questions.

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The "teachings of the past" are based on medieval myths and superstitions, barbaric and ignorant of the world around us. If we don't worry about those "teachings" guiding us, they will lead us all to destruction.

            2. Don Crowson profile image78
              Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And what is wrong with the ideology? Be specific.  If you are capable of teaching anyone anything you now have the chance to prove it.  And don't say the question is nonsenical like your LookingforWalden.  And don't refuse to answer the question as you accuse Christians of doing.  If don't answer the question, wiopethe egg of your face.

              1. mischeviousme profile image60
                mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                If I answer anyone's question, they'll never figure it out for themselve's. The only thing I can do is advise. It was a philosopher's duty to impart knowledge, not trap their listeners to any one concept.

                    The idea is this; If you are right, then you never have to argue the point. Does that suffice as an answer?

                1. Don Crowson profile image78
                  Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The question is addressed to Troubled man and Lookingfor Walden.  Their attitudes are that religious fanatics will not answer direct questions and religious fanatics claim that questions are nonsensical.  Troubled man has said that the thing wrong with Christianity is its ideology.  I berlieve he should answer that question.

                  I contend that he has not figured it out for himself. He knows nothing about it or he would not have placed himself in the trap he is in.

                  1. mischeviousme profile image60
                    mischeviousmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Some people feel the way they do. If they choose to think one way then that is their path. there is no one path to follow and their answers may be found elsewhere.

                        I think it is also easy to ring conversations in circles, it is a subconcious way of protecting their beliefs.

                2. LookingForWalden profile image59
                  LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't share the same beliefs about Christianity as troubled man.

                  I don't have a problem with a person living their lives by the moral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

                  In fact, I raise my son with those same values and morals.

                  I do NOT teach him everything in the bible is accurate nor would I ever allow such a thing to happen in his school.

                  What boggles my mind is, speaking only from experience, how born again evangelicals are so far removed from being Jesus like.

                  If you go through your life acting like Jesus, Iike helping the poor, your neighbors, not discriminating, valuing all life, respecting people
                  Sacrifice for others, turning the other cheek, not judging people, etc

                  I will gladly say you have lived a great life on this earth and your time here will be missed, regardless of my beliefs.

                  In all honesty I feel bad disproving obvious things like the earth is millions of years old, evolution, validity on the bible, and things like that because I'm afraid that if believing that is what keeps a person of drugs or alcohol or whatever then I don't want to be responsible for shaking their faith.

              2. LookingForWalden profile image59
                LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Re read the posts, I said YOU dismiss questions you don't like as nonsensical, as shown in your posts with MB which she then said I'd rather talk to a wall than you.

              3. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Okay.

                It divides people with one side evangelizing their beliefs to the other telling them they'll burn for eternity if they don't join.
                It causes good people to do and say bad things.
                It causes conflict and wars such that we've seen throughout history
                It causes people to be dishonest with themselves and everyone else.
                I causes people to lie about the world we live in.
                It teaches us we are evil and full of sin when it is actually the religion that is filling us with evil.
                It causes people to stop thinking for themselves.
                It causes people to live a life of obedience and worship rather than learning and understanding.
                It causes people to detest reality and give up on it for an alleged eternal afterlife.

                Shall I go on? Do you need more?

      2. 0
        Cranfordjsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Christianity and free exchange of ideas? What happened during the Inquisition along with the rest of Christianity's history. People seem to live in a bubble thinking Christianity is great because it has made a transition in the last 50years. But we can't forget the other 1950 years. Don't forget history, or it will repeat itself? right? 

        Side note- Statistics show Christianity has been declining over the past 50 years. Maybe there's a correlation there?

        1. Don Crowson profile image78
          Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well, Im glad to know that you believe everyone is so rigid they cannot change. That means that you are to ridgid to have intelligent discussions, doesn't it? Notice how you have painted "ALL" Christians with your "BIG TRUTH BRUSH"

          Tells methat I was right abhout your including All Christians as fanatics.  Wonder when someone else will post proof positive that they are too rigid to seek the truth?

  19. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    Shepherds tend their flocks in the spring during the birthing time. Jesus was born in the spring. I think it humorous that atheists also fit the description of religious zealots. Though they do attempt to portray their beliefs as rational, they accept "theories" as absolute fact. No better than the men of science from ancient times who insisted that the earth was flat. You realize that they accept someone else's conclusions without having the skills necessary to prove it definitively themselves. No different than a christian sitting in the pews, allowing their heads to be filled with a new dogma.

    1. Don Crowson profile image78
      Don Crowsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you 100%. Not only religious fanatics who are too rigid to seek truth.  Fanatics come in all sizes, shapes, and forms of political and cultural bigotry.

  20. Smokes Angel profile image74
    Smokes Angelposted 5 years ago

    Fanatics are found not just in Christians but all other religions, in atheists, in sports, in politics.  A true Christian is understanding and kind but stands up for what he believes in.  If you have such a problem that probably makes you a fanatic as well janesix.  You cannot group anyone into a group without knowing them first.

    1. 0
      Cranfordjsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Fanatic Atheist, fanatic people in sports, and fanatic politicians don't kill people though. Fanatic religious people do. The fanatic politicians are all bible pushers with agendas.

      1. Valerie F profile image60
        Valerie Fposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, yes they do, and of the worst mass murderers in recent history, all but one were fanatical atheist politicians. The remaining one, Hitler, exploited religion but really worshipped himself.

        1. LookingForWalden profile image59
          LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What mass murders are you referring to?

          1. Valerie F profile image60
            Valerie Fposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I am referring to Pol Pot, Ceucescu, Guevara, Castro, Mao, and Stalin.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, I thought you were talking about Bush, Bush, Gaddafi, Hussein, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Bin Ladin, Mari Bim Amude Alkatiri... Shall I go on?

              1. Valerie F profile image60
                Valerie Fposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That doesn't change the fact that the one person with the most murders, disappearances, and false imprisonments to his name was not a religious fanatic, but an atheist political fanatic. It proves my point that political fanaticism, far from being harmless, is even worse than religious fanaticism.

                1. Pcunix profile image90
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  But he wasn't doing it because of his non-religion, was he?  That all came from political ideology, not religion or atheism.

                  On the other side, I'm not ready to damn religion for  atrocities, because I suspect that in most cases, politics and power had much more to do with it.  Religion is often more the excuse than the cause.

                  1. Valerie F profile image60
                    Valerie Fposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I agree with you there, but I was talking about the claim Cranforddjs made a page back that political fanatics don't kill people. Not only do political fanatics commit murder- and on an extremely large scale, but it seems that political fanaticism is the cause of nearly every violent conflict attributed to religion. (And neither Qaddafi nor Saddam Hussein would qualify in my book as religious fanatics, unless you count devotion to the unholy trinity of Me, Myself, and I as a religion.)

  21. LookingForWalden profile image59
    LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago

    Having said that if you really, really want to have debates about fundamentalist christianty, I will oblige you.

    I would keep in mind that you have everything to lose if your wrong while I play for nothing.

 
working